Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[SteveII]

[SteveII]

I want to know why god doesn't speak these days. He used to have no problem just turning up and saying stuff. What happened?

Because the NT was the culmination of his revelation in that salvation now provides access to God on a daily basis. So, before he was distant and visited every so often and sent prophets every so often but now he is within reach of everyone.

[Mr.wizard]

Love your neighbor as yourself was in the OT as well, yet no one interpreted it as implying that slavery is wrong back then.

But you see how you have to go by your own subjective interpretation of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself in order to come to your personal conclusion that slavery is wrong. Some people may think that loving your neighbor as yourself does not apply to slaves in the same way that others thought this did not apply to non-Israelites. Many Americans in the days prior to, and during the Civil War, certainly did not interpret that command to mean stop owning slaves. So if subjective interpretations (of the scriptures, mind you) is what you have to go by, you're not in any better position than us.

In the OT is was literally your neighbor. Jesus expanded "your neighbor" to mean everyone in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I can't see how that parable leaves the concept of everyone being your neighbor as subjective. The Jews hated the Samaritans. If Americans did not interpret that concept correctly it certainly was not because it was unclear. Jesus expanded several things in the same way. Do not murder was expanded to do not hate. Do not commit adultery was expanded to do not lust, etc. He explained it was a heart thing, not a "do not" thing.

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

[ukatheist]

[GrandizerII]

In the OT is was literally your neighbor. Jesus expanded "your neighbor" to mean everyone in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I can't see how that parable leaves the concept of everyone being your neighbor as subjective. The Jews hated the Samaritans. If Americans did not interpret that concept correctly it certainly was not because it was unclear. Jesus expanded several things in the same way. Do not murder was expanded to do not hate. Do not commit adultery was expanded to do not lust, etc. He explained it was a heart thing, not a "do not" thing.

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

The Bible just simply isn't explicitly clear on slavery being wrong. But putting that aside, it's not like we even have clear unambiguous access to all of God's moral rules, assuming God exists. So even if divine morality exists, there is no evidence that it is fully and readily available and that Christians or others are going by the rules of such morality rather than by the same or similar standards everyone else is going by.

[Veritas_Vincit]

[Mr.wizard]

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

The Bible just simply isn't explicitly clear on slavery being wrong. But putting that aside, it's not like we even have clear unambiguous access to all of God's moral rules, assuming God exists. So even if divine morality exists, there is no evidence that it is fully and readily available and that Christians or others are going by the rules of such morality rather than by the same or similar standards everyone else is going by.

I agree and that's why I have a problem with the explanation of jesus not telling people slavery was wrong so they could figure it out for themselves. If that was the case why have a bible, a messiah, followers, or churches? Why give commands on certain actions and not others, why give commands to certain people in certain time periods and not others? Also if the idea was for us to draw our own moral conclusions, how would we know if we made the right choice and would it be moral to punish us for our conclusions?

[Angrboda]

[Minimalist]

Because the NT was the culmination of his revelation in that salvation now provides access to God on a daily basis.

Horseshit.  The church did not finalize the NT until the 5th century and even that was only the catholic church.  What you have in your hands that so impresses you is a pile of dung voted on by crooked bishops each with an axe to grind.  It is no more holy than a House-Senate Conference Committee Report!

Grow up, son.  There is no "revelation."

[Veritas_Vincit]

What do you think morality is?

---

It's because morality pertains to behaviour and actions, not just events